SPC for Senate: Part X

[Vepres]

I know this may shock you, but I endorse you

OMG! This endorsement changes everything!

[Vepres]

I don't believe there is a clause that allows for the nationalization of industry.

I take a broad interpretation to this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Although, nationalization could be interpreted as violating Article I, Section 5, Clause 4:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bold is mine.

[Vepres]

Maybe I should take every piece of economic legislation interfering with that to court. It seems that everything would.

Well, no. As long as regulations, taxes, etc. are applied to an industry as a whole, it is undistorted. However, this bailout favors the big 3 American companies, while giving no relief to the American divisions of foreign automakers.

[Vepres]

Maybe I should take every piece of economic legislation interfering with that to court. It seems that everything would.

Well, no. As long as regulations, taxes, etc. are applied to an industry as a whole, it is undistorted. However, this bailout favors the big 3 American companies, while giving no relief to the American divisions of foreign automakers.

What about free trade to some countries and not others?

All companies in the US, whether they're HQed here or simply have a division here, pay the same tariff for trade with a certain country.

By the way, if the nationalization of the automakers is in the final bill and it passes, I wouldn't mind seeing this taken to court.

[Vepres]

I don't believe there is a clause that allows for the nationalization of industry.

I take a broad interpretation to this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Although, nationalization could be interpreted as violating Article I, Section 5, Clause 4:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bold is mine.

Thanks for helping my case, Vepres.

To read that clause as Vepres does would place the Constitution in contradiction of itself. How can we levy taxes without distorting the free market?

Distorting the fairness of competition is how I interpret it. You can regulate and tax all you want, but you cannot favor some companies over others in a given industry.

[Vepres]

I know it's late but...

Endorsed!

I plan on giving you my first preference.

[Vepres]

I know it's late but...

Endorsed!

I plan on giving you my first preference.

So this guy is a liar.

Note, "plan to". Jas entered the race late.

As Jas almost surely won't win, it was a symbolic vote. I essentially gave SPC first preference, though. If I thought Jas had a chance SPC would be the first preference.

[Vepres]

[Vepres]

Well if history shows anything, we'll have at least opening in the senate before the four months are up.  While I am the obvious candidate for an open seat, I'd step aside if SPC wanted it

I think I'm retiring from electoral politics for now.

That's very unfortunate, you are one of my favorite RPPers.

[Vepres]

Vote SPC: He supports the right of smokers to give children respiratory problems.

     Every good thing can be spun to look bad. Case in point: the quoted post.

Please explain how overturning a smoking ban is a good thing. Not in terms of libertarian buzzwords (I know about personal and business freedom, blah blah), explain how it's better for society for second hand smoke to be everywhere.

You know, there actually is a libertarian argument to make for a public smoking ban. Second hand smoke harms the health of others, thus it harms their right to life, which justifies government intervention.